The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

Clearly our leaders were not doing their job well enough though..as the Franco Prussian war of 1870/71 should have been a good demonstration as to what lay ahead. 43 years later after rapid industrialisation and the perfecting of various killing machines should have persuaded intelligent people to talk the problem out. But I guess when you have your own people (both sides) kept ignorant from the facts and the horrors of war you can count on their support, Which in turn made our leaders lazy and complacent.

Clearly our leaders were not doing their job well enough though..as the Franco Prussian war of 1870/71 should have been a good demonstration as to what lay ahead. 43 years later after rapid industrialisation and the perfecting of various killing machines should have persuaded intelligent people to talk the problem out. But I guess when you have your own people (both sides) kept ignorant from the facts and the horrors of war you can count on their support, Which in turn made our leaders lazy and complacent.

Which war do you take your lessons from? The American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War or the Boer War? WWI in fact started out as a war of maneuver. The trench evolved as a means to deny maneuver. Generals were always thinking how to break through each other's lines and then begin their maneuver to surround their enemy. The fact that the trenches proved too much does not mean that they took the wrong lessons. They had the right idea, strong force on weak points instead of strong force on strong points. That was the lesson the Boers taught the British when they tore the British lines to shreds.

Which war do you take your lessons from? The American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War or the Boer War? WWI in fact started out as a war of maneuver. The trench evolved as a means to deny maneuver. Generals were always thinking how to break through each other's lines and then begin their maneuver to surround their enemy. The fact that the trenches proved too much does not mean that they took the wrong lessons. They had the right idea, strong force on weak points instead of strong force on strong points. That was the lesson the Boers taught the British when they tore the British lines to shreds.

That lesson was repeated with Blitzkreig in WWII.

I used the Franco-Prussian war deliberately because it was in the same area and roughly between the same belligerents. Clearly Prussian casualties were more acceptable than the French which were colossal.
French casualties 756,285 Prussian casualties 144,642 which for only 6 months fighting was staggeringly high
My reading on the Boer war describes it as the Boers gaining an upper hand by using Guerilla tactics against an army using European battlefield tactics that hadn't changed much since the Napoleonic wars. Clearly weaponry had improved but not much else. I think I'm right in thinking the American civil war was the bloodiest up until the 1st world war? As DE says the Germans thought they could conclude another short war with acceptable casualties. But they are not alone in this thinking. Which clearly with hindsight was flawed. So my point was that the evidence was already there and enforced by the British guaranteeing Belgian neutrality. Something that even the Prussians had originally agreed.

But the British Army that emerged from the Boer War would have decimated the Franco-Prussian Armies as well as American Civil War Armies. They were taught/forced by the Boers to concentrate their fire and to deny the Boers their supplies (Concentration camps of their families). The Boers, with inferior numbers, could not have done trench warfare, thus they must rely on maneuver with the few set battles that they did fought.

British Generals, being no dummies, saw how a small force of commandoes on horseback could effectively fight a larger force and at times, emerged victorious. They brought in commandoes of their own, being the Horse Regiments from India, Australia, and Canada. It is no coincidence that Canadian Artillery falls under the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, despite the fact that all the guns regiments no longer have horses.

As I stated earlier, WWI started out as a war of manuver. Everyone was trying to outmanuver the other guy. Even the Franco-Prussian, it was relatively short, meaning they had collapsed the French lines. The only war that come close to WWI was the bloodletting of the American Civil War that lasted 4 years and even then, the Americans sought to manuver, especially Sherman's March to The Sea.

There is an old saying. Generals like to fight the last war and the few last wars were won by maneuver. Even WWI was won by maneuver when the British introduced the tank. So I cannot fault WWI Generals for not knowing any better.

But the British Army that emerged from the Boer War would have decimated the Franco-Prussian Armies as well as American Civil War Armies. They were taught/forced by the Boers to concentrate their fire and to deny the Boers their supplies (Concentration camps of their families). The Boers, with inferior numbers, could not have done trench warfare, thus they must rely on maneuver with the few set battles that they did fought.

British Generals, being no dummies, saw how a small force of commandoes on horseback could effectively fight a larger force and at times, emerged victorious. They brought in commandoes of their own, being the Horse Regiments from India, Australia, and Canada. It is no coincidence that Canadian Artillery falls under the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, despite the fact that all the guns regiments no longer have horses.

As I stated earlier, WWI started out as a war of manuver. Everyone was trying to outmanuver the other guy. Even the Franco-Prussian, it was relatively short, meaning they had collapsed the French lines. The only war that come close to WWI was the bloodletting of the American Civil War that lasted 4 years and even then, the Americans sought to manuver, especially Sherman's March to The Sea.

There is an old saying. Generals like to fight the last war and the few last wars were won by maneuver. Even WWI was won by maneuver when the British introduced the tank. So I cannot fault WWI Generals for not knowing any better.

Putting families in concentration camps was not our proudest hour. But nonetheless it did help win that war. We used the same tactic again in Malaya, reworded the concept and moved a few hundred thousand Malays into 'New Villages' which were fortified, Same effect as the insurgents were separated from the population.
I hear perfectly what you say about a war by Maneuver.....clearly this led to Dunkirk in WW2

But I guess when you have your own people (both sides) kept ignorant from the facts and the horrors of war you can count on their support, Which in turn made our leaders lazy and complacent.

Nobody wins in war, Everybody loses.

Right, brings up the role of the media. Abysmal. Nobody had any idea what they were getting into. Most likely censored so people would enlist. It just sent more and more people to their deaths and prolonged the war as long as there were men to fight

I'm amazed there was no professional army left to fight a mere three months after the war began. The Brits had the only professional army at the time, everybody else depended on conscription

Right, brings up the role of the media. Abysmal. Nobody had any idea what they were getting into. Most likely censored so people would enlist. It just sent more and more people to their deaths and prolonged the war as long as there were men to fight

I'm amazed there was no professional army left to fight a mere three months after the war began. The Brits had the only professional army at the time, everybody else depended on conscription

Completely censored and the entire state apparatus were in on to, Church, Media, Government The whole lousy corrupt self serving dung heap...sorry but you get my point. When an entire generation lie in France/ Belgium or were maimed for life, mentally or physically and then came back to no jobs or state support you can see how turbulent the politics became. My Great granddad joined as a regular in September 1914 at the outbreak completed his training by the following June. In the line in France by September and dead in December..now resting in Abbeville and for what??? I've got his Bronze plaque and medals and some pictures and newspaper cuttings....just one of thousands. Very proud of him but can't help but see the futility.
To my knowledge the People's army only entered the line in 1916 ready for the Somme and next butchers bill. But hey there were many Canadians, Indians, Australians etc there too. We'd have been lost without them.

I think it might be worth adding that although the Regular Army was decimated in 14/15 it did manage to inflict maximum damage on the Germans in the process, the germans were relying on numbers to crush us (allies) and paid a very heavy price.

Completely censored and the entire state apparatus were in on to, Church, Media, Government The whole lousy corrupt self serving dung heap...sorry but you get my point. When an entire generation lie in France/ Belgium or were maimed for life, mentally or physically and then came back to no jobs or state support you can see how turbulent the politics became. My Great granddad joined as a regular in September 1914 at the outbreak completed his training by the following June. In the line in France by September and dead in December..now resting in Abbeville and for what??? I've got his Bronze plaque and medals and some pictures and newspaper cuttings....just one of thousands. Very proud of him but can't help but see the futility.
To my knowledge the People's army only entered the line in 1916 ready for the Somme and next butchers bill. But hey there were many Canadians, Indians, Australians etc there too. We'd have been lost without them.

What drags Britain in is Belgium. Belgium got invaded and Britain was sucked in along with the others. The last thing Germany needed was a war with Britain. But the Kaiser builds up his navy to a point where the only conclusion in Britain is that its sole purpose is to counter the British Navy.

Would France honour Belgium's neutrality in the event war broke out with Germany ? Yes
Germany ? No answer

It was apparent the real target was Russia. This would serve British interests well, let the Germans do the dirty work.

I think it might be worth adding that although the Regular Army was decimated in 14/15 it did manage to inflict maximum damage on the Germans in the process, the germans were relying on numbers to crush us (allies) and paid a very heavy price.

It went back and forth. The amount of people who had to die to gain a few metres only to lose them a week later. Year in and out : (

I already told you cannot generalize....they have different interest and needs.

Its short term losses vs long term gains.Those long term gains are for decades and a long term investor would
love that.

War profits are also extraordinary for some businesses. for example tata and birla during ww2.so this "Wars are never good for business" is outright false in many ways.
Even in destructive civil wars like afghanistan and bosnia, there are war profiteers

whether businesses will be affected in the short term, it depends on the context ..not a simple one or two line declaration.

For Germany, ww1 was fought mostly away from home excepting the bombing and parts of the more distant east (East Prussia,west Poland). That does not put german businesses in a catastrophe.

In any case,its not always by logic.... the enthusiasm for war and nationalism may hide the problems that came later. Dont forget businessmen are nationalists too often and feel strongly about
the nation.

The allied bombing in ww2 was way more devastating and still German industry functioned to a significant extent.but we r not discussing that time here.

Yes business and industry is consulted by govts for important policy matters if their contribution is involved. would you believe if someone says BJP wont meet RSS for a meeting?

how can a govt execute war without industry ? Its not something plausible.

ok, now we've got a proper counter to nial's point. Who is business ? financiers, industrialist and shipping lines. Financiers were less necessary by the beginning of the 20th century compared to the nineteenth for war financing. But Industrialists and shipping lines could benefit from a war with guaranteed orders. I picked his line out of a podcast, not a book. So i don't know the full reasons he said that.

Nial has nothing to do with this channel btw

For the global war, the Germans were the prime instigators giving a blank cheque to
Austria. The german decision was taken several months before to back the hapsburgs in
any action vs the serbs. The kaiser felt strongly about it. It was a case of
backing the younger brother and also the racist motivation in form of germandom vs
slavdom (held by many germans including key executives) .

The ultimatum and destruction of any negotiations were all "Germany behind the back of
Austria" and they were all designed to fail in favor of war.

The exact war aims are not documented as the german leaders censored any talk of war aims.
They wanted to be flexible as the war proceeded. but there was an important meeting from which
the september program was typed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm

The german conduct is attributed to two possibilities.

1. Fear of encirclement by France and russia on land and britain by the sea.
As your program noted, France and russia had a modernisation program that will be realsied
by 1917-18. It was in germany's interest to cripple them both and break out out of the encirclement by hegemony in
central/eastern europe.

2. Germany's africa project has failed due to lack of interest in settlement and funding.
The alternative was central/eastern europe at the expense of "backward slavs".
This was plain old imperialism- we will use the land better than backward natives

German historians especially before the 60's denied number 2. A revisionist historian named Fritz Fischer changed
it. Still the historians are not fully settled on the issue.

If you ask yourself who desired change in status MOST, its Germany.

For me , its number 2 due to german war settlement at brest and the clues given by the
september program. Also that germany had ther most to gain by a change in balance of power

To think that german leaders wont thnk about german predominance in europe is outside the
realm of probability for me.

It was apparent the real target was Russia. This would serve British interests well, let the Germans do the dirty work.

As I remember it was the French alliance with the Russians that brought the Russians into the war against Germany. The UK was free to follow its own path as the triple entente was not an alliance of mutual defense

It went back and forth. The amount of people who had to die to gain a few metres only to lose them a week later. Year in and out : (

I'm just referring to the first few months when the BEF were decimated but held the Germans back causing massive casualties...Its hardly surprising the BEF were ground down when facing such numbers

To my knowledge the People's army only entered the line in 1916 ready for the Somme and next butchers bill. But hey there were many Canadians, Indians, Australians etc there too. We'd have been lost without them.

I think it might be worth adding that although the Regular Army was decimated in 14/15 it did manage to inflict maximum damage on the Germans in the process, the germans were relying on numbers to crush us (allies) and paid a very heavy price.

From 84,000 down to 15,000 within three months. The Germans lost heavily because they threw n00bs at pro's

They should have taken their lessons from the american civil war. This would have given them an idea of how bloody it could be. Instead they drew from shorter Franco-Prussian war

Neither the French nor the Prussians were involved in the ACW. Their previous experiences reflected in their performances. The French overcame their defiences while the Germans tried to repeat their performances from their previous war.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

From 84,000 down to 15,000 within three months. The Germans lost heavily because they threw n00bs at pro's

The British had an immediate replacement with the British Indian Army. However, the difference between conscript and professional soldiers is six months. In six months time, the conscript would have been battle hardened to the point where while not equal to the professional soldier, he would have been more the proficent to give the professional a real fight and other capabilities would have to be brought to bear to decide an action.

In this case, by the time the Colonies, the Dominions, and British India could send replacement armies, the CP would have negated any training advantage through sheer battle experience.

Originally Posted by Toby

As this short film demonstrates, there is only so much you can do against sheer weight of numbers